Reliance Retail Directed To Replace Defective Bluestar AC, Pay Compensation For Deficiency In Service: Mumbai District Consumer Commission
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai, comprising President Sadikali B. Sayyad and Member Smt. G. M. Kapse, has held Reliance Retail Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to replace a defective air conditioner despite admitting the defect and accepting the warranty claim. The Commission directed the retailer to replace the defective unit and pay compensation and litigation costs to the complainant.
Background
The complaint was filed by Mr. Nilesh Nenshi Gala, who purchased two Bluestar split air conditioners worth ₹70,000 from the Reliance Digital Store at Fort, Mumbai, on 27.09.2018. According to the complainant, one of the two units began malfunctioning around March 2019, exhibiting cooling issues within the one-year warranty period. Despite repeated requests and service calls, the complainant alleged that Reliance Retail failed to provide timely repair or replacement. Although the manufacturer, Bluestar, was willing to replace the defective unit, Reliance Retail did not facilitate the replacement. Aggrieved by the delay and inaction, the complainant approached the District Commission seeking relief.
Defence of Reliance Retail
Reliance Retail Ltd., represented by Advocate S.P. Chavan, contested the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that the complainant was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the dispute did not qualify as a “consumer dispute.” The retailer further submitted that warranty obligations rested with the manufacturer, not the seller, and that it had acted promptly by forwarding the complaint to Bluestar. It was also alleged that the complainant was unreasonable in insisting on keeping the old unit in addition to receiving a replacement, which caused the delay in replacement. The retailer contended that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on its part.
Commission’s Observations
The Commission rejected the retailer’s preliminary objection, holding that the complainant had purchased the ACs for personal use, thereby falling within the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The transaction was held to be a “consumer dispute” as Reliance Retail, being a seller and service provider, was responsible for ensuring redressal of warranty claims.
On the issue of deficiency in service, the Commission noted that the defect in the AC and the manufacturer’s willingness to replace it were admitted facts. However, Reliance Retail failed to ensure that the replacement was executed. The allegation that the complainant made unreasonable demands was found to be baseless and unsupported by any documentary evidence.
The Commission referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia [(1998) 4 SCC 39], wherein it was held that when a consumer suffers due to defective goods, responsibility lies with all parties in the supply chain, including the retailer. It observed: “The Opponent failed to follow up adequately with the manufacturer and ensure execution of the replacement, despite admitting that the manufacturer had agreed to replace the unit. Such inaction constitutes gross negligence and a clear case of deficiency in service.” The Commission further held that the conduct of Reliance Retail amounted to unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
Relief Granted
Holding Reliance Retail guilty of deficiency in service, the Commission directed the following:
Replacement of the defective Bluestar AC with a new unit of equivalent specifications within 30 days.
Compensation of ₹10,000 to the complainant for mental agony and harassment.
Litigation costs of ₹5,000.
The order further provided that failure to comply within 30 days would attract interest at 9% per annum on the awarded sum until realization.
Since Reliance Retail failed to facilitate the replacement of a defective product during the warranty period and engaged in delaying tactics, the South Mumbai District Commission held the retailer liable and allowed the consumer complaint. Reliance Retail has been directed to replace the defective AC and compensate the complainant for the harassment suffered.
Appearance
For Complainant: Adv. Saiyed Sahil Nagamiya/Adv. Manish N Gala
For Respondent: Adv. S. P. Chavan
Cause Title: Nilesh Nenshi Gala V. Reliance Retail Ltd.
Case No: Consumer Complaint No. 117/2019
Coram: Sadikali B. Sayyad [President], G.M Kapse [Member]
